Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penelitian ini dilatar belakangi oleh adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XV/2018 terhadap Kelembagaan Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, serta urgensi keanggotaan DPD RI yang berasal dari unsur partai politik akibat putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XV/2018. Metode yang digunakan kualitatif dengan pendekatan Yuridis Normatif. Temuan pada penelitian ini adalah: Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam putusannya menegaskan bahwa frasa "pekerjaan lain" dalam Pasal 182 huruf i UU Pemilu bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat secara bersyarat sepanjang tidak dimaknai mencakup pula pengurus partai politik (parpol). Putusan MK tersebut berdampak pada larangan pencalonan anggota DPD dari unsur pengurus parpol. DPD tidak dapat diisi oleh pengurus parpol, "Pengurus parpol" struktur organisasi parpol yang bersangkutan. MK mengakui bahwa Pasal 182 huruf i UU Pemilu memang tidak secara tegas melarang pengurus parpol mencalonkan diri menjadi calon anggota DPD. Sikap MK berdasarkan putusan-putusan sebelumnya selalu menegaskan bahwa calon anggota DPD tidak boleh berasal dari anggota parpol. Sehingga, secara otomatis pasal tersebut bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 apabila tidak dimaknai melarang pengurus parpol mencalonkan diri menjadi anggota DPD. Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki kewenangan untuk melakukan pengujian undang-undang terhadap konstitusi, memutus sengketa lembaga negara, memutus pembubaran partai politik, dan memutus perselisihan hasil pemilihan umum pada tingkat pertama dan terakhir. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi bersifat final artinya mencakup juga kekuatan mengikat (binding). Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki kekuatan mengikat, kekuatan pembuktian, dan kekuatan eksekutorial. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XVI/2018 pada pelaksanaannya telah terjadi problematika mengenai berlakunya putusan tersebut yang dianggap berlaku surut. Mahkamah Agung yang membatalkan PKPU Nomor 26 Tahun 2018 karena berpendapat bahwa Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XVI/2018 berlaku surut. Namun Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU- XVI/2018 tetap harus dilaksanakan, sehingga timbul ketidakpastian hukum. Mahkamah Agung dinilai telah mengabaikan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Dalam kasus pelaksanaan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XVI/2018, penafsiran dari Mahkamah Konstitusi yang harus dijadikan pedoman dan dilaksanakan.

---

The background of this research is the existence of the Constitutional Court decision Number 30/PUU-XV/2018 against the Institution of the Regional Representatives Council, as well as the urgency of DPD RI membership originating from political parties as a result of the Constitutional Court decision Number 30/PUU-XV/2018. The method used in this study is to use a qualitative method with a normative juridical approach. The findings of this study are: The Constitutional Court in its decision emphasized that the phrase "other work" in Article 182 letter i of the Election Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have conditionally binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted to include administrators of political parties (political parties). The Constitutional Court's decision had an impact on the ban on the candidacy of DPD members from elements of political party management. So, the DPD cannot be filled by political party officials. The "administrators of political parties" in this decision are administrators starting from the central level to the lowest level according to the organizational structure of the political party concerned. The Constitutional Court acknowledged that Article 182 letter i of the Election Law does not explicitly prohibit political party officials from nominating themselves as candidates for DPD members. Even though the Constitutional Court's stance based on previous decisions always emphasized that candidates for DPD members could not come from members of political parties. Thus, this article automatically contradicts the 1945 Constitution if it is not interpreted as prohibiting political party officials from nominating themselves to become members of the DPD. The Constitutional Court has the authority to review laws against the constitution, decide on disputes over state institutions, decide on the dissolution of political parties, and decide on disputes over the results of general elections at the first and last levels. The decision of the Constitutional Court is final, meaning that it includes binding powers. Decisions of the Constitutional Court have binding power, evidentiary power, and executorial power. In its implementation, there have been problems regarding the validity of the decision which is considered retroactive. The Supreme Court canceled PKPU Number 26 of 2018 because it was of the opinion that the Constitutional Court Decision Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018 was retroactive. However, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018 must still be implemented, resulting in legal uncertainty. The Supreme Court is considered to have ignored the decision of the Constitutional Court. In the case of the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018, it is the interpretation of the Constitutional Court that must be used as a guideline and implemented."

"ABSTRAKMahkamah Konstitusi mempunyai fungsi untuk mengawal konstitusi agar dilaksanakan dan dihormati baik penyelenggara kekuasaan negara maupun warga negara. Tak ayal, reformasi hukum di Indonesia menjadi prasyarat untuk menjadi negara hukum yang demokratis. Salah satu bentuk reformasi hukum dalam institusi kekuasan kehakiman adalah gagasan mengadopsi mekanisme constitusional question kedalam sistem peradilan konstitusi. Constitutional question merujuk pada suatu mekanisme pengujian konstitusionalitas undang- undang, yaitu dalam hal seorang hakim yang sedang mengadili suatu perkara ragu-ragu mengenai konstitusionalitas undang-undang yang berlaku untuk perkara tersebut. Oleh karena itu, skripsi ini ingin membahas mengenai urgensi penerapan kewenangan constitutional question di Indonesia dan alternatif penerapan constitutional question di Indonesia. Metode penulisan yang digunakan adalah penulisan yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kualitatif dan menggunakan bahan kepustakaan serta wawancara. Dari hasil riset didapati bahwa terdapat urgensi untuk menambahkan kewenangan constitutional question di Indonesia. Diadopsinya mekanisme constitutional question adalah bentuk pemberian perlindungan maksimum terhadap hak konstitusional warga negara. Dengan adanya mekanisme tersebut, dapat dihindari adanya putusan hakim yang bertentangan dengan konstitusi dan melanggar hak konstitusional warga negara; ruang pengujian terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan semakin luas; dan dapat dihindari adanya pelanggaran hak konstitusional yang tidak diperlukan. Bila diterapkan di Indonesia, dasar kewenangan constitutional question dapat diatur melalui amandemen konstitusi, revisi Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, ataupun perluasan legal standing lembaga negara sebagai salah satu pemohon constitutional review. Dalam pelaksanaannya, pemohon constitutional question, baik hanya hakim peradilan umum maupun dibuka peluang bagi pihak yang berperkara, mengajukan permohonannya melalui kepaniteraan pengadilan tersebut untuk selanjutnya diolah oleh Ketua Pengadilan dan diajukan ke Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam bentuk serupa dengan constitutional review. Selain itu, perlu diatur mengenai kualifikasi pemohon constitutional question dan pembatasan waktu penanganan perkara constitutional question oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi.

---

ABSTRACTThe Constitutional Court functions to oversee the implementation of the constitution both by state and citizen. Needless to say, legal reform in Indonesia is a requirement to be a democratic legal state. One part of legal reform in the institution of judicial power is the idea of adopting a constitutional questioning mechanism into the constitutional court system. Constitutional question refers to a mechanism for examining the constitutionality of a law, namely in the case of a judge who is adjudicating a case has a doubt regarding the constitutionality of the law applicable in the case. Therefore, this thesis would like to examine about the urgency of applying constitutional question and alternative way to implement constitutional question in Indonesia. Research method used is normative juridical writing with qualitative approach from library materials and interview. The research results found the urgency for the implementation of constitutional question in Indonesia. The adoption of the constitutional question mechanism is a form of maximum protection to the citizen rsquo s constitutional rights. With the existence of such mechanism, court decisions that are contrary to the constitution and violate the constitutional rights of the citizens can be avoided the testing material of the legislation becomes expansive and unnecessary constitutional rights violations can be avoided. If applied in Indonesia, the basis of the authority of constitutional question may be regulated through constitutional amendment, the revision of the Constitutional Court Law, the Constitutional Court Decision, or the extension of legal standing of state institutions as one of the applicants for constitutional review. In implementation, the applicant of constituional question, whether only judges from general courts or the opportunty will also be opened for litigant, files the application through the secretariat of the court. Henceforth the application will be processed by chairman of court and submitted to Constitutional Court in form similar to constitutional review. In addition, it is necessary to regulate the applicant 39 s qualification of constitutional question and time limitation for handling of constitutional question by the Constitutional Court. "